Thoughts on environmentalist?

[Marmelado]

I want Stellaris to have full-fledged ecology mechanics. The conflict between industry and nature is a very important and a very interesting concept. Sadly, right now there is no real system of mechanics dealing with ecology and environment. There are only disparate and unrelated mechanics like habitability, terraforming, planetary anomalies, alien zoo, few civics, few perks and so on. If there was an organized system of ecological mechanics, the environmentalist civic would actually make sense.

 

[theBigTurnip385]

It would need to scale to make it useful.

Academic Privilege + Parliamentary Systems produce's better unity.

Common Ground -> Trade league also produces better unity, leaving the civic slots completely open.

 

[Dementor4]

I like that it's distinct.

I feel like it could scale a bit better into the late game.

Stuff like...
- Gain +2 amenities from every blocker when you research the tech to remove that blocker
- Gain +1 housing from every blocker when you research Antigravity Engineeering
- Gain +2 unity per blocker if you take the World Shaper perk
- Gain +4 TV per blocker if you take the Mastery of Nature perk

Basically when I'm taking something which has thematic ties to environmentalism, but mechanical anti-synergy, give me something to compensate for the anti-synergy.

Good ideas all around.

I think I would probably scrap +2 amenities from the removal tech for one key reason: just as spiritualists can elect not to have robotics tech clog up their engineering tree, so to should environmentalists have the option to have blocker removal techs from clogging up their society tree. This would itself be a significant benefit.

 

[HFY]

Good ideas all around.

I think I would probably scrap +2 amenities from the removal tech for one key reason: just as spiritualists can elect not to have robotics tech clog up their engineering tree, so to should environmentalists have the option to have blocker removal techs from clogging up their society tree. This would itself be a significant benefit.

Not sure I'd want that. Even as an Environmentalist, I still have reason to clear blockers on some worlds -- e.g. for Arcology Project on a few planets.

The anti-synergy is that blocker-clearing is less useful for Environmentalists, but it's not totally worthless.

 

[Dementor4]

Not sure I'd want that. Even as an Environmentalist, I still have reason to clear blockers on some worlds -- e.g. for Arcology Project on a few planets.

The anti-synergy is that blocker-clearing is less useful for Environmentalists, but it's not totally worthless.

Hence making it optional: a spiritualist can toggle robot techs being legal or illegal, which effects the tech draws. An environmentalist could do the same: the early game is where those blockers hurt you the least and where those techs are the most burdensome. So they would make them illegal at 2200, then once they start wanting to remove some around 2230 or whatever they can flip it around again. At that point they can burn through those techs in a few months and they aren't a big deal.

 

[HFY]

Hence making it optional: a spiritualist can toggle robot techs being legal or illegal, which effects the tech draws. An environmentalist could do the same: the early game is where those blockers hurt you the least and where those techs are the most burdensome. So they would make them illegal at 2200, then once they start wanting to remove some around 2230 or whatever they can flip it around again. At that point they can burn through those techs in a few months and they aren't a big deal.

I would use that option to do that tactic in every single game, no exceptions, no relation to taking Environmentalist or not.

Therefore I think it might not be balanced.

 

[Cry_Havok]

I find it to be useful, if not the best, civic. It does pair well with Egalitarian to press down the fact that their living standards are fairly expensive. It's pretty strong early game because it gives free resources and ranger jobs are... acceptable-ish (they're pretty meh amenities buildings, but they do cover early developement. It's also worker-tier research, which I am sure has some use). It does definitely lack staying power unless you are gunning for Utopian Abundance.

It also has a bit of an oversight in that it has no interaction with Toxic World blockers, half of which are clearly natural in some sense of the word (insects, seaweed, and I think another one)

Ideas to improve it:
Classify the toxic world blockers as natural.
Make it allow pacifying space fauna regardless of ethics
+Habitability per blocker feels like it could be thematic (and help offset carrying capicity loss by reducing housing requirements)
Improve the ranger jobs (some suggestions are in this thread by others)
Substitute Clerks for Rangers on the resort world
Give some special interaction with the Alien Zoo

 

[Incompetent]

Not sure I'd want that. Even as an Environmentalist, I still have reason to clear blockers on some worlds -- e.g. for Arcology Project on a few planets.

The anti-synergy is that blocker-clearing is less useful for Environmentalists, but it's not totally worthless.

By the time you're making Ecumenopolises from natural planets (as opposed to restoring Relic Worlds, which doesn't require any blocker-clearing tech), I think it's fair to say that your empire has abandoned ecological preservation as a core principle. Practically speaking too, the civic isn't that useful at the Ecumenopolis stage of the game, so you're probably about to reform out of it anyway.

On the other hand, purging the tech tree of a bunch of non-critical techs can be a noticeable advantage in the early game, for the same reason (although not to the same extent) that +1 research option is a good bonus. With the blocker-clearing techs we're talking about Society, specifically the New Worlds field. The blocker-clearing techs have an extremely high weight if you have any of the relevant blockers, so they can definitely get in the way of the Society techs you want to research, even if you don't have a New Worlds specialist scientist. If you do have a New Worlds scientist, the field is pretty high-quality with the blocker techs removed: starbase capacity, habitability and extra building slots are all powerful techs to get ahead of schedule. (It also unlocks terraforming, which won't be relevant early on but could be a better way to clear the blockers later in the game.)

 

[HFY]

By the time you're making Ecumenopolises from natural planets (as opposed to restoring Relic Worlds, which doesn't require any blocker-clearing tech), I think it's fair to say that your empire has abandoned ecological preservation as a core principle. Practically speaking too, the civic isn't that useful at the Ecumenopolis stage of the game, so you're probably about to reform out of it anyway.

Not really?

Making an Ecu per 5 preserved planets with lovely intact Blockers on them seems like mostly keeping to our core principles, just not adhering to them blindly.

On the other hand, purging the tech tree of a bunch of non-critical techs can be a noticeable advantage in the early game, for the same reason (although not to the same extent) that +1 research option is a good bonus. With the blocker-clearing techs we're talking about Society, specifically the New Worlds field. The blocker-clearing techs have an extremely high weight if you have any of the relevant blockers, so they can definitely get in the way of the Society techs you want to research, even if you don't have a New Worlds specialist scientist. If you do have a New Worlds scientist, the field is pretty high-quality with the blocker techs removed: starbase capacity, habitability and extra building slots are all powerful techs to get ahead of schedule. (It also unlocks terraforming, which won't be relevant early on but could be a better way to clear the blockers later in the game.)

Just move the blocker techs up a few tiers (while keeping their low costs). Let them come later for everyone.

Or put them all behind one of the Terraforming techs, so you can avoid unlocking them.

Nobody wants them clogging up the pool early.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

Just move the blocker techs up a few tiers (while keeping their low costs). Let them come later for everyone.

Or put them all behind one of the Terraforming techs, so you can avoid unlocking them.

Nobody wants them clogging up the pool early.

I don't think putting them at higher tiers than full terraforming is ideal, I figure they should just have something like a x0.001 drop weight if you don't have a planet with both the blocker and either less than like 5 free district slots or no free districts of a specific type the blocker is blocking. Maybe also not if you've got a blocker of that type blocking a rare resource deposit?

 

[HFY]

I don't think putting them at higher tiers than full terraforming is ideal, I figure they should just have something like a x0.001 drop weight if you don't have a planet with both the blocker and either less than like 5 free district slots or no free districts of a specific type the blocker is blocking. Maybe also not if you've got a blocker of that type blocking a rare resource deposit?

Oh, that's an idea.

So the drop weight would be 0 unless you have the blocker on a planet without a Ranger Station.

If you want to remove a blocker, just don't build the station on that planet.

That also solves cases like Tomb Worlds with volcanoes / mountains / wild beasts -- which I want to turn into an Ecu because yuck -- where I do want to remove those blockers if they are present.

Right now, the drop weight is 0 unless you have the blocker on a planet, with or without a Ranger Station, so an Environmentalist gets bombarded with those techs.

But changing the drop weight to care about (a) settled and (b) NOT ranger station, that would fix the bombardment.

 

[TrotBot]

It provides:

-20% CG upkeep for pops
Ranger lodge building and holding

Ranger lodge gives creates a blocker that blocks a district, and provides 2 unity for that blocker and every 'natural' blocker, the buildings upkeep is 2 energy. Also provides 2 ranger jobs, which gives 2 society research and 3 amenities each

For the CG upkeep, obviously it works well with utopian. Is it worth it for 'social welfare' standards as well (for those of us that don't want to be egalitarian?). For the lodge, a big problem seems to me that blockers reduce planet capacity, so will reduce planet growth

Finally, rangers seem to suck bad, unless I am missing something about them. They seem even worse than clerks.

Thoughts?

Environmentalist, conservationist, overtuned low maintenance, .4 consumer goods a month for utopian abundance.

Also I've seen 20-50 unity a month per colony in the early game, even makes low habitability worlds worth it.

 

[Dr. B]

What happens with already constructed Ranger Lodges etc if you chance out of the civic later on?

 

[TrotBot]

What happens with already constructed Ranger Lodges etc if you chance out of the civic later on?

*poof*

 

[Anarcomu]

Recently started an aquatic run, colonizing every world for pop growth and resettling all pops except one (for non-ocean). Building a ranger lodge in all of those low-hab planet proved to be worthwhile.

 

[Dr. B]

I'm testing out Environmentalist now.

I start with it, and go wild colonizing everything like a trad/clerk build, except the 20% hab planets only have a range lodge 2x slaves working as rangers, nothing else.

After 14 years and 5 colonized planets, I am getting 40 of 107 unity from blockers. It is okay. Need Exploration and Imperial Prerogative to keep planet size down. Will change out the civic later on, I think, but decent for starting out.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

The ranger lodge on the capital world is a total waste and gets replaced ASAP, and I never bother building lodges on planets with less than two pre-existing natural blockers as I have rather arbitrarily decided that 6 base unity for 2 energy and a building slot is my Environmentalist pain threshold. The ranger jobs are essentially sociologist clerks, and useful in the same situations as clerks are useful for non-trade based empires, i.e. very rarely.

That said, I like Environmentalist as a 2nd civic for planned wide high-unity games, but it can be a bit hit-and miss.

Sometimes you get unlucky and the first planets just have one or two natural blockers, or perhaps none at all, and nothing you can get your hands on in the early game has a significant number of natural blockers, in which case all you have to fall back on is the -20% CG and that just isn't quite enough to make up for the opportunity cost.

But mostly you'll get a few 2-4 blocker planets where the extra POP-free unity from that is so very sweet and comes in helpful not only in the very early game, but for quite some time into the midgame if you haven't already swapped it out on the 3rd civic swap.

And then there are games when you realize that it is 2231, and you haven't reformed for 3rd civic yet because you really don't want to get rid of environmentalist as originally planned, and consider reforming to get a 3rd while keeping it instead as is the case in my current game.

12 ranger lodges, 24 energy upkeep. 155 unity. I'm loving it. (Natural blockers 1x6, 3x4, 4x3, 4x2 excluding preserves.)

Anyhow, the Composer of Strands loves it, which is as good an excuse as any for keeping it around.

(Though admittedly the Environmentalist civic isn't the reason this particular game ran off the rails and will probably soon be abandoned. Getting an Avatar on my second Shroud visit and cowing all the nearby AIs into submission is to blame for that.)

Also, a fringe benefit of playing with Environmentalist is that it indirectly trains you to be a better player.

Hear me out!

One of the more subtle wastes of energy in Stellaris is clearing blockers before you strictly need to. Sure, sometimes you need to do it to ensure maximum growth on 10+ POP planets or to free up districts, but more often thoughtful use of districts in the first place means that this can be put off until the midgame or later and the energy invested in other things for all but a few planets - and the Environmentalist civic is the perfect civic for constantly reminding the player of that better playstyle.

 

[HFY]

Hear me out!

One of the more subtle wastes of energy in Stellaris is clearing blockers before you strictly need to. Sure, sometimes you need to do it to ensure maximum growth on 10+ POP planets or to free up districts, but more often thoughtful use of districts in the first place means that this can be put off until the midgame or later and the energy invested in other things for all but a few planets - and the Environmentalist civic is the perfect civic for constantly reminding the player of that better playstyle.

100% guilty over here.

Usually I'll start trying to clear blockers during the initial colonization countdown -- before I have any options to build things.

That feels time-efficient even if it's not money-efficient.

 

[Imp0815]

I recently played with them and i replaced them all in the mid to endgame as i did not need any more unity.
To counteract the missing district slots i would suggest to give a flat Happiness modifier per blocker in addition to unity with an upgrade to the building in the mid to late game.
So it counteracts the missing production of potential districts by giving pops more production potential.
Also as an Environmentalists it would make me happy to see Nature preserved and unhappy if it gets destroyed..

 

[Metallichydra]

What happens with already constructed Ranger Lodges etc if you chance out of the civic later on?

As far as I know, the ranger lodges disappear. BUT - not the nature preserves.
You can then reform into environmentalist 10 years later and build a new ranger lodge for a new nature preserve.